GILBERT: Public Service Commission did review smart meter risks

State Rep. Eileen Kowall of White Lake thinks an unbalanced view of safety issues surrounding smart meters has been presented in this space.

She may very well be correct. All views should be welcome.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine health concerns about smart meters were presented. But Kowall points out that the Michigan Public Service Commission presented a comprehensive report on the issue last year.

What follows are highlights of what MPSC stated.

The commission noted that the Federal Communications Commission is charged with regulating international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable within the United States. It also provides licenses for radio frequency emissions. The FCC regulations cover matters relating to public health and safety and have been designed to ensure that the levels of RF emissions that consumers are exposed to are not harmful.

“In January 2011, the California Council on Science and Technology completed a report titled ‘Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters,’” the MSPC stated.

“The CCST compiled a comprehensive overview of known information on human exposure to wireless signals, including the effectiveness of the FCC RF safety regulations. After evaluating numerous RF related publications and soliciting the opinions of technical experts in this and related fields, the CCST concluded that no additional standards are needed at this time and FCC standards are adequate to ensure the health and safety of people from the known effects of smart meters. The report also indicates that smart meters, when installed correctly and with FCC certification, emit only a fraction of the level that the FCC has determined to be safe.”

In another study, the Electric Power Research Institute — which is funded by the electric utility industry — researched smart meter emission data that provide RF exposure scenarios for a widely used type of smart meter. There were three key findings: 1) exposure levels from individual meters declined rapidly as distance from the meter increased; 2) meters transmitted for only a small fraction of time; and 3) RF exposure levels remained well below the FCC exposure limits.

The Utilities Telecom Council, in an article titled “No Health Threat from Smart Meters,” provided a review of the safety standards associated with RF emissions and stated that smart meters did not pose a health or safety threat.

“The UTC’s research established that laptop computers using Wi-Fi transmit at levels similar to smart meters, although laptop transmitters are always ‘on’ or transmitting and smart meters transmit for short intervals periodically throughout the day,” the MPSC stated. “After reviewing this and other common RF devices (cell phones, microwave ovens, etc.), the UTC concluded that the RF emissions from smart meters would not pose a threat to human health and safety. UTC represents electric, gas, and water utilities; natural gas pipelines; critical infrastructure companies; and other industry stakeholders.”

In California last year, the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency issued a memorandum titled “Health Risks Associated with SmartMeters” in response to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ request that the agency identify potential smart meter health effects and possible mitigation measures.

The memo concluded that research addressing the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) does not specifically address smart meters, and government agencies should take precautionary avoidance measures.

“The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reviewed the agency’s memorandum as part of the Smart Grid Technical Advisory Project,” the MPSC said.

“LBNL’s review focused on the objective of the memorandum, consistency of cited sources with agency established peer review criteria, and clarification of technical assumptions and claims. LBNL asserted that the memorandum did not appear to provide a balanced representation of research, the risks, or mitigation options. Instead the agency memorandum is largely focused on scientifically unsupported claims related to ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity.’”

LBNL acknowledged that individuals with EHS report real symptoms; however, health research has been unable to consistently attribute those symptoms to EMF exposure.

In April of last year, the AAEM submitted its position paper supporting AAEM’s position that emissions from smart meters are potentially harmful. LBNL also responded to the AAEM position paper. According to the MPSC, LBNL’s primary concerns with the paper’s findings are: a) the research used to establish a cause and effect relationship does not address smart meters; b) the research citations and references are unrelated to smart meters; c) conclusions are about EHS; and d) the minimal amount of RF smart meters actually contribute to total environmental RF.

“Smart meters are a small contributor to the total environmental RF emissions to which the general public is exposed. Eliminating smart meters would result in a minimal reduction of total emissions.”

Several comments submitted to the MPSC cited the World Health Organization’s classification of RF EMF as a class 2B carcinogen in support of their smart meter health concerns. This classification means only that RF EMF has been deemed as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans, the MSPC stated.

Plus, in May 2011, members of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s Monographs Working Group reviewed roughly 900 studies that involved RF EMF and cancer. With respect to environmental sources of RF EMF, the group determined that there was no “solid data” to conclude a link between cancer and RF EMF exposure.

So there you have it. There are differences of opinion. Unfortunately, many of us are not physicians or scientists, and those folks don’t all agree with each other anyway.

So we are left with hope — hope that the studies done on smart meters have integrity and that the majority of them — some of which are funded by affected industries — are correct.

It is probably superfluous to point out that the majority is not always right.

The issue is probably moot at this point since DTE Energy has largely completed smart meter installations throughout Southeast Michigan.

Glenn Gilbert is group editor of Digital First Media newspapers in Michigan. Contact him at glenn.gilbert@ oakpress.com or 248-745-4587. Follow him on Twitter @glenngilbert2. View his blog at glenngilbert2.blogspot.com